Size matters: Is the U.S. Navy really too small?

2015-09-08T09:50:07-04:00

I have mixed feelings about this. Reagan's 600-ship Navy was an integral part of spending the USSR into oblivion, but I don't think that would be relevant today. Today's Navy has 273 active ships, and we're showing the wear with extended deployment times which effects everything from readiness to morale. I think we need more ships, but how many? With 2 (1 under construction, 1 PCU) Ford-class Carriers -- out of a projected 10 -- coming online within the next 5 years, the Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyers, and the Block III Virgina-class Subs, the Navy is taking significant steps to upgrade capabilities...but will technology be enough to make up for projected coverage gaps?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/us-navy-size-military-election-2016/index.html

Is the U.S. Navy too small? - CNNPolitics.com

GOP presidential candidates are warning voters that America's undisputed dominance of the world's oceans could end unless lawmakers add significantly more ships.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Sep 8 at 2015 9:52 AM

2015-09-08T09:52:16-04:00

Tech is the great equalizer. We need to make sure it is working for us. Big dumb armies and navies have a poor track record.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2015 9:58 AM

2015-09-08T09:58:25-04:00

We have the most advanced Navy in the world and are envied by all. Yet, I think we need to invest fully in the Nimitz modernization program and accelerate the Ford production to get back to a 12 carrier fleet. Yes the Flight III Burke and Virginia class are important but they will always ask "Where is the carrier"

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2015 10:02 AM

2015-09-08T10:02:41-04:00

The over all strength of our military is growing to small. we will have a hard time fighting a confrontation on more than one front. And we depend on way to much automation, we need to stop cutting good service members and get back to the basics.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Sep 8 at 2015 10:05 AM

2015-09-08T10:05:25-04:00

For the first time in many years there wont be a carrier task force in the Med because we dont have the ships...Because Obama retired the Enterprise 2 years sooner than expected or planned.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Sep 8 at 2015 10:51 AM

2015-09-08T10:51:10-04:00

I would say yes but what will the military be giving up? We all know to gain something we have to give up something. I know that during Enduring Freedom I was stationed on the USS Independence and we were the SPECOP platform. I believe that would be an invaluable asset to have a ship, some type of carrier, to serve in this capacity.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Sep 8 at 2015 10:56 AM

2015-09-08T10:56:31-04:00

What we really need are ships with enough armor to stop a .50 cal round.

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Sep 8 at 2015 10:59 AM

2015-09-08T10:59:43-04:00

No worries ,Greg, we have someone sitting on their porch in Alaska keeping an eye on Russia,so we don't have to worry about coverage there.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Sep 8 at 2015 11:04 AM

2015-09-08T11:04:23-04:00

SN Greg Wright, It's too early in the morning with that headline lol. If the military did away with all of the faulty and pointless weapons systems (F-35 this means you 400B and counting), we could more effectively invest those dollars into systems and programs that would more support the forces. But we're busy having new uniforms, new boots, challenge coins, new battle tanks, and the ever loving F-35. As far as ships go, maybe a more effective rotational system so that if one is in drydocck, another could take it's place seamlessly and continue the mission effectively. We're never going to have it as good as it was. Money isn't there anymore, but a more effective use of the systems we have could probably give the same effect and not break the backs of the sailors or the bank. All those ships in mothballs couldn't be used as a stop gap measure? If not why have them?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2015 11:14 AM

2015-09-08T11:14:11-04:00

I know that the Navy is stretched by deployment schedules, and maintenance has become an issue. However, I think it is worth pointing out that just ONE Ohio class submarine could lay waste to any foe. Just one carrier could take on nearly any enemy air force, by itself (with escorts). No one can challenge the USA at sea, and only a foolish enemy would try.
I think the question worth asking is do we really need to be forward deployed everywhere? The answer to that would determine the size of the Navy needed to patrol.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Sep 8 at 2015 11:35 AM

2015-09-08T11:35:48-04:00

I think the Navy is too small. I'm also not convinced that the LCS is worth the paper it's designed on. We need more capitol ships (Carriers, LHDs) and more ships to go with them...

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2015 11:54 AM

2015-09-08T11:54:34-04:00

It's not discussed as often as the need for more aircraft carriers, but our other ships are overextended as well. I think around 350 in enough for a better sustainment, but an increase is definitely needed to maintain our presence as is.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 8 at 2015 2:55 PM

2015-09-08T14:55:00-04:00

It depends on the nature of the threat(s).

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 8 at 2015 3:21 PM

2015-09-08T15:21:29-04:00

Without delving too deep into the actual numbers, I always worked under the assumption we needed an up/down Carrier group (and ARG) for each of the major AO's and another in case a "contingency" occurred. So 7+ 1 (x1.5 - 2) if my math is correct. That means "at least" 11 Carrier Groups x however many ships (including logistical support ships) that ends up being. So we either have that or we don't.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Sep 8 at 2015 3:40 PM

2015-09-08T15:40:48-04:00

Show of force is the biggest and the baddest on the block! Show of force is the best deterrent!

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Sep 8 at 2015 11:01 PM

2015-09-08T23:01:26-04:00

I have a few scale model ships ready to go !!!! Where do we need them the most??? Pacific??? Atlantic??? Bathtub???

Response by SGT Edward Ghiorso made Sep 9 at 2015 1:50 AM

2015-09-09T01:50:06-04:00

I think we do need more ships. I also think that part of the problem we are having with terrorist is aided be the reduction of our military over the years.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Sep 10 at 2015 6:07 AM

2015-09-10T06:07:41-04:00

Not only do we need more ships but we'll need the qualified Sailors and Officers to operate them! Sure, "smart" technology will allow us to do more with less (meaning it will take less bodies to fully man a ship) but we still need the people.

Response by Cpl James Waycasie made Sep 10 at 2015 7:04 PM

2015-09-10T19:04:38-04:00

I think we should have a lot more. The age old " the best defense is a strong offense" comes to mind in this decision. Of course I have always believed in being prepared and overkill, lol

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 6:51 PM

2015-10-05T18:51:42-04:00

It's easy to say that we need more ships (or that we need fewer ships), but that really comes down to manning and operational commitment. Do we NEED 330,000 sailors in the fleet? Do those sailors NEED a home/work balance? How many deployments/etc before attrition begins to climb? If the mission of the Navy is to be omnipresent, then yes, we need more ships. If we could keep the ships out to sea and rotate the crews more frequently, then that might accomplish the same goal with fewer ships (less money on maintenance and upkeep). A big problem that we are seeing today is the strain that these vessels are under, however. After more than a decade of extended deployments, surging, and decreased funding, these ships are starting to fall apart. Even the brand new DDGs such as the Jason Dunham look like they have seen better days, when only 4 years ago it was brand new and entering Norfolk for the first time.
So, the question becomes where do we make cuts? Is it better to have 300 beaters or 200 ships you can rely on? Should we maintain a global presence or focus only on the highest class of threats? Should we spend $10 billion researching the next generation of warships or should we better maintain the hulls currently in service and try to stretch their lifespans?

I vote for extending the current classes, scaling back operations where we can, and ensuring that the money gets to the sailors and ships on the waterfront to ensure that WHEN they are needed, they are adequately prepared for the fight.

Response by CPO Emmett (Bud) Carpenter made Oct 5 at 2015 7:30 PM

2015-10-05T19:30:19-04:00

I was in San Diego when the George Washington pulled in. She has been rode hard and put away wet. We need more flat tops.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 12:06 PM

2015-10-06T12:06:53-04:00

but we are in deep debt already .... may have no choice but to cut even deeper ... like after WW2 on British ... from a naval super power ... to ... whatever they are now ..

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Oct 6 at 2015 12:26 PM

2015-10-06T12:26:31-04:00

It's a slippery slope brother. You build a lot of ships, you feel good knowing you can produce redundant force anywhere in the world. Great. Now with this comes the manpower costs, maintenance costs, and support costs. So was that giant Navy really required, or could SOME technology or the opening of closed jobs between enlisted and officers close some of the gap? With more ships, are you really saving when it comes to drydock time? We have (had?) the mothball fleet. Is it too much to ask to maybe update them and place them back in service? Not a Sailor so I need the experts on that. I'll equate this to having an Army the size of the surge; it damn sure was needed, and we're damn sure glad there were folks ready to come in. Now that big Army isn't needed per se (I think it needs to be larger than where we're headed), but nothing like what it used to be. Could we effectively intergrade the NG and Reserves into the AC where we're short? Or how about our own "mothball fleet" the IRR? Call them up and say you're contract isn't up yet. At the end of the day it's going to come to dollars. How much should be spent vs. the actual need or requirement? And with our unstable economy, whatever procurement the military makes will have an effect on the civilian side also. Something will have to give. But if you did away with the F-35 program as a whole and even tried to recoup SOME of the wasted money in that dead program, you could use it to augment some of the costs of the ships. I do not like the F-35 and will slam it any time I can.

Response by CPO Curt Kuhn made Sep 27 at 2016 4:55 PM

2016-09-27T16:55:02-04:00

We need more ships and crews. As a guinea pig of the minimal manning experiments I know there is no room for error with minimal crew or minimal ships. You take one ship off the line for repairs or damage you have no back up. Ships take damage and need repair and crews doing damage control take loses. The Flight I Burkes are getting long in the teeth the flight II's are approaching middle age. The LCS's bring little or nothing to the table and are suffering engineering casualties right and left. Your cruisers are almost 30 years old. Availability and SRA time is a joke, 90 day SRA's after deployment? Yeah a lots gonna get done. At the present rate your looking at 9 month deployments every year and 4 months of repair and workups, 6 at the most. Here's a question, how many ships can we dry dock in the US currently at one time. How many carriers? If a carrier(s) needs to be dry docked how many can we do at one time? The answer might shock you